{"id":28377,"date":"2021-11-10T17:23:49","date_gmt":"2021-11-10T16:23:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=28377"},"modified":"2021-11-10T17:25:33","modified_gmt":"2021-11-10T16:25:33","slug":"app-store-changes-apples-request-for-a-delay-was-rejected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/app-store-aenderungen-apples-antrag-auf-aufschub-wurde-abgelehnt","title":{"rendered":"App Store changes: Apple's request for delay was rejected"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following a hearing, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has now denied Apple's request to delay the implementation of a permanent injunction requiring Apple to make important changes to the App Store.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After a brief hearing, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Apple's request to stay the court orders that would force the company to lift the App Store's anti-steering rules that prohibit developers from including purchase buttons and links in their apps. The decision follows the conclusion of the Epic v. Apple case. In an attempt to circumvent App Store commissions and launch a pre-planned legal barrage designed to overturn App Store policies, Epic secretly integrated a direct payment alternative into its popular game "Fortnite" last year. Apple then kicked the game off the store for violating App Store policies, setting off a legal fireworks display focused on alleged antitrust issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge is bothered by Apple's anti-steering guidelines<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Apple prevailed on nine of the 10 counts, but the judge took issue with Apple's anti-steering policies, which prohibit developers from using buttons or links that direct users to alternative payment methods. In her September ruling, the judge ordered Apple to lift those policies and allow app developers to "communicate with customers through touchpoints they voluntarily obtain by registering their account in the app." Apple has appealed the ruling and asked the court to stay enforcement of the injunction until the lawsuit is resolved. That request was denied today. Rogers explained:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, Apple's motion is based on a selective reading of the court's findings and ignores all of the findings that supported the preliminary injunction, namely incipient antitrust conduct, including super-competitive commission rates that result in extraordinarily high profit margins and do not correlate with the value of the intellectual property.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Are Apple's arguments too weak?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Apple's legal team, however, argued in court that integrating the new App Store services would be a huge task that would take "months." Apple lawyer Mark Perry is quoted by The Verge as saying: quoted<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This will be the first time Apple has allowed live links in a digital content app. It will take months to sort out the technical, economic, business and other issues. It is extremely complicated. There need to be guardrails and policies to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers and to protect Apple. And they need to be written into policies that can be explained, enforced and applied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Judge Gonzalez Rogers said Apple wants "an indefinite stay without a requirement to seek compliance" and that there are "multiple options" for Apple to comply with the order while protecting users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court can imagine numerous ways in which Apple could comply with the injunction while also taking steps to protect users, if Apple genuinely believes that external links would cause problems. The Court is not convinced, but it is not there to regulate things in detail. Consumers are used to linking from an app to a web browser. Aside from the fact that Apple may need time to establish policies, the Court has not provided any credible reason to believe that the injunction would cause the alleged harm. Links can be tested through App Review. Users can open browsers and retype links to achieve the same effect; it is just inconvenient, which again only benefits Apple.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

App Store changes: Apple has until December 9, 2021<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Apple told The Verge that it will seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied it. explained<\/a> a company spokesman:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple believes that no further business changes should be required until all appeals in this case are resolved. We intend to ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As things stand, Apple has until December 9th to make the changes ordered in the App Store. It remains to be seen whether Apple will be successful with its new application to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Do you already know the early Black Friday deals on Amazon<\/a>? Stop by, there are dozens of bargains to be found. (Photo by MaxSafaniuk \/ Bigstockphoto)<\/p>\n\n\n\n